Validate RIS config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the concrete check set (username, account/workspace, partitions), but says nothing about what the result looks like or whether it merely reports or also repairs issues.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the three checks listed crisply. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should convey the shape of the verdict (pass/fail, list of failures), and it does not. The check list is adequate for a lightweight validator, but the result contract is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'profile' parameter is fully documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'the current profile' hints at the profile-selection concept but adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check'/validate) and resource ('the current profile against RIS facts') and enumerates the three things verified: username set, account/workspace configured, partitions valid. It is clearly distinguishable from display-oriented siblings like ris_show_config or ris_auth_status, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: validating config before running jobs or after setup. There is no explicit when-to-use, no ordering relative to ris_set_profile / ris_show_config / ris_auth_status, and no statement of what to do when validation fails.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.